Patient Navigation to Reduce Emergency Department (ED) Utilization Among Medicaid Insured, Frequent ED Users: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Some Medicaid enrollees frequently utilize the emergency department (ED) due to barriers accessing health care services in other settings. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether an ED-initiated Patient Navigation program (ED-PN) designed to improve health care access for Medicaid-insured frequent ED users could decrease ED visits, hospitalizations, and costs. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing ED-PN with usual care (UC) among 100 Medicaid-enrolled frequent ED users (defined as 4-18 ED visits in the prior year), assessing ED utilization during the 12 months pre- and post-enrollment. Secondary outcomes included hospitalizations, outpatient utilization, hospital costs, and Medicaid costs. We also compared characteristics between ED-PN patients with and without reduced ED utilization. RESULTS: Of 214 eligible patients approached, 100 (47%) consented to participate. Forty-nine were randomized to ED-PN and 51 to UC. Sociodemographic characteristics and prior utilization were similar between groups. ED-PN participants had a significant reduction in ED visits and hospitalizations during the 12-month evaluation period compared with UC, averaging 1.4 fewer ED visits per patient (p = 0.01) and 1.0 fewer hospitalizations per patient (p = 0.001). Both groups increased outpatient utilization. ED-PN patients showed a trend toward reduced per-patient hospital costs (-$10,201, p = 0.10); Medicaid costs were unchanged (-$5,765, p = 0.26). Patients who demonstrated a reduction in ED usage were older (mean age 42 vs. 33 years, p = 0.03) and had lower health literacy (78% low health literacy vs. 40%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: An ED-PN program targeting Medicaid-insured high ED utilizers demonstrated significant reductions in ED visits and hospitalizations in the 12 months after enrollment.

Community Health Workers: Addressing Client Objectives Among Frequent Emergency Department Users.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate effectiveness of a community health worker (CHW) program designed to address client objectives among frequent emergency department (ED) users. DESIGN: Program evaluation using secondary analysis of client objectives from program records. Client objectives were characterized according to the World Health Organization's social determinants of health framework. Hierarchical generalized linear modeling was used to assess factors associated with objective achievement. SETTING: An ED and the surrounding community in an economically disadvantaged area of Buffalo, New York. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1600 adults over age 18 eligible for Medicaid and/or Medicare and who had at least 2 ED visits in the prior year. INTERVENTION: Clients worked with CHWs in the community to identify diverse needs and objectives. Community health workers provided individualized services to help achieve objectives. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Achievement of client-focused objectives. RESULTS: Most objectives pertained to linkage to community resources and health care navigation, emphasizing chronic medical conditions and connection to primary care. Clients and CHWs together achieved 43% of total objectives. Objective achievement was positively associated with greater client engagement in CHW services. CONCLUSIONS: Low objective achievement may stem from system- and policy-level barriers, such as lack of affordable housing and access to primary care. Strategies for improving client engagement in CHW services are needed. Community health workers and their clients were most successful in areas in which public health policies and systems made resources easy to access or where the program had formalized relationships with resources, such as primary care.

Association of mental health disorders and Medicaid with ED admissions for ambulatory care-sensitive condition conditions.

INTRODUCTION: Adult Medicaid enrollees are more likely to have mental health disorders (MHDs) than privately insured patients and also have high rates of emergency department (ED) visits for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (ACSCs). We aimed to evaluate the association of MHD and insurance type with ED admissions for ACSC in the United States. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of ED visits made by adults aged 18 to 64 years using the corrected 2011 National Emergency Department Survey. Using multivariable logistic regression analysis, we controlled for sociodemographics and clinical variables to determine the association between insurance type, MHD, Medicaid, and MHD (as an interaction variable) and ED admissions for ACSC. RESULTS: There were 131 million ED visits in 2011; after exclusions, 1.4 million admissions were included in our study. Of all ED visits, 44.7% had an MHD, of which 49.9% were covered by Medicaid and 38.1% were covered by private insurance. A total of 32.6% (95% confidence interval, 32.5%-32.7%) of ED admissions were for an ACSC. Medicaid-covered ED visits were more likely to result in ACSC hospital admission (odds ratio, 1.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-1.35) compared with visits covered by private insurance. Among patients with MHD, those with Medicaid insurance had 1.6 times the odds of ACSC admission compared with those privately insured. CONCLUSION: Among all ED admissions, patients covered by Medicaid are more likely to be admitted for an ACSC when compared with those covered by private insurance, with a larger association being present among patients with MHD comorbidities.

National Trends in Emergency Department Visits by Adults With Mental Health Disorders.

BACKGROUND: Although mental health disorders (MHDs) affect as many as 1 in 4 adults in the U.S., the national trends in emergency department (ED) use for adults who have MHD comorbidities are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of mental health disorder co-morbidities for adults who use the ED and how this utilization differs by insurance type. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of the National Emergency Department Survey (NEDS) dataset of adults 18 to 64 years of age that was conducted from 2006 to 2011. We defined individuals with MHD comorbidities by applying the MHD Clinical Classification Software groupings to any of the 1 to 15 diagnostic fields available in the NEDS. We further evaluated ED visits made for a primary diagnosis of MHD by applying the same aforementioned codes to the primary diagnosis. We constructed ED visit rates using the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey. We used descriptive statistics and tested for differences in trends in visits and visit rates by payer using an ordinary least squares regression. RESULTS: The number of ED visits increased by 8.6% from 2006 to 2011. The number of ED visits made by adults primarily for MHDs and with MHD comorbidities increased by 20.5% and 53.3%, respectively (p < 0.0001); ED visits made adults without MHDs decreased by 1.1% (p = 0.72) for the same time period. When accounting for the population growth rate, ED visit rates made by adults with MHD comorbidities increased for all insurance types, but decreased for those without MHD comorbidities. CONCLUSION: MHD comorbidities play a significant role in the increasing number of ED visits, regardless of insurance coverage. Additional studies are needed to understand the role of patients with MHDs and ED use.

Predictors of patients who present to the emergency department with sepsis and progress to septic shock between 4 and 48 hours of emergency department arrival.

OBJECTIVES: Approximately one in every four patients who present to the emergency department with sepsis progresses to septic shock within 72 hours of arrival. In this study, we describe key patient characteristics present within 4 hours of emergency department arrival that are associated with developing septic shock between 4 and 48 hours of emergency department arrival. DESIGN AND SETTING: This study was a retrospective chart review study of all patients hospitalized from the emergency department with two or more systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria present within 4 hours of emergency department arrival from September 2010 to February 2011 at two large academic institutions. Patients were excluded if they presented with a ST-elevation myocardial infarction, acute stroke, or trauma; had a cardiac arrest prior to arrival; were pregnant; or admitted from the emergency department psychiatric unit or transferred from an outside hospital. We identified patients with within 4 hours of emergency department arrival and identified those with septic shock at 48 hours after emergency department arrival, using a standard set of guidelines. The primary objective was identifying the number of patients who present with sepsis and progress to septic shock between 4 and 48 hours of emergency department arrival. As to the second objective, we used multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify patient factors associated with the progression of sepsis to septic shock for the aforementioned population. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 18,100 patients were admitted from the emergency department, of which 3,960 patients had two or more systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, and 1,316 patients had sepsis within 4 hours of emergency department arrival. Although 50 patients presented to the emergency department with septic shock within 4 hours of arrival, 111 patients with sepsis (8.4%) progressed to septic shock between 4 and 48 hours of emergency department arrival. Characteristics associated with the progression of septic shock between 4 and 48 hours of emergency department arrival included female gender (odds ratio, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.02-2.47), nonpersistent hypotension (odds ratio, 6.24; 95% CI, 3.58-10.86), bandemia at least 10% (odds ratio, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.50-4.51), lactate at least 4.0 mmol/L (odds ratio, 5.30; 95% CI, 2.59-10.84), and past medical of coronary artery disease (odds ratio, 2.01; 95% 1.26-3.44). CONCLUSION: Approximately 12% of septic emergency department patients develop shock within 48 hours of presentation, and more than half of these patients develop shock after the first 4 hours of emergency department arrival. Over a third of patients who have sepsis within 4 hours of emergency department arrival and develop septic shock between 4 and 48 hours of emergency department arrival are not admitted to an ICU.

Do Adult Medicaid Enrollees Prefer Going to Their Primary Care Provider's Clinic Rather Than Emergency Department (ED) for Low Acuity Conditions?

BACKGROUND: The rates of annual visits for adult Medicaid enrollees to the emergency department (ED) are increasing. Many programs throughout the country are focused on engaging patients in the use of their primary care providers (PCP) rather than the ED for low acuity conditions. It is unclear, however, the proportion of patients who are willing to use primary care services rather than the ED if they are given the choice. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of adult Medicaid enrollees (18 y and older) presenting to a large, urban, academic ED from June to August 2012 with a low acuity condition was performed. We excluded patients who did not have a PCP or active Medicaid insurance. Our primary goal was to determine the proportion of patients who prefer to use the ED, rather than their PCP clinic, if an appointment was immediately available. Our second goal was to understand why patients would prefer ED over PCP care. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients agreed to complete the survey, and 95 (63.3%) met our inclusion criteria. Forty-three patients (45.3%) stated preferring to use their PCPs rather than the ED if an appointment was available at that time. Thirteen (48.1%) cited that the ED had more technology or specialty care services available when compared with their PCP's clinic, 8 (15.4%) were in significant pain, and 6 (11.5%) felt the care they received in the ED was better than what they would receive in their PCP clinic. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that a little less than half of adult Medicaid enrollees presenting to the ED with low acuity conditions would have preferred to use their PCP rather than the ED, if an appointment had been immediately available.

Variation in US hospital emergency department admission rates by clinical condition.

BACKGROUND: Variation in hospitalization rates have been described for decades, yet little is known about variation in emergency department (ED) admission rates across clinical conditions. We sought to describe variation in ED risk-standardized admission rates (RSAR) and the consistency between condition-specific ED admission rates within hospitals. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of the 2009 National Emergency Department Sample, an all-payer administrative, claims dataset. We identify the 15 most frequently admitted conditions using Clinical Classification Software. To identify conditions with the highest ED RSAR variation, we compared both the ratio of the 75th percentile to the 25th percentile hospital and coefficient of variation between conditions. We calculate Spearman correlation coefficients to assess within-hospital correlation of condition-specific ED RSARs. RESULTS: Of 21,885,845 adult ED visits, 4,470,105 (20%) resulted in admission. Among the 15 most frequently admitted conditions, the 5 with the highest magnitude of variation were: mood disorders (ratio of 75th:25th percentile, 6.97; coefficient of variation, 0.81), nonspecific chest pain (2.68; 0.66), skin and soft tissue infections (1.82; 0.51), urinary tract infections (1.58; 0.43), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (1.57; 0.33). For these 5 conditions, the within-hospital RSAR correlations between each pair of conditions were >0.4, except for mood disorders, which was poorly correlated with all other conditions (r<0.3). CONCLUSIONS: There is significant condition-specific variation in ED admission rates across US hospitals. This variation appears to be consistent between conditions with high variation within hospitals.

Characteristics of Medicaid-Covered Emergency Department Visits Made by Nonelderly Adults: A National Study.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act has added millions of new Medicaid enrollees to the health care system. These patients account for a large proportion of emergency department (ED) utilization. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to characterize this population and their ED use at a national level. METHODS: We used the 2010 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) to describe demographics and clinical characteristics of nonelderly adults (≥18 years old and ≤64 years old) with Medicaid-covered ED visits. We defined frequent ED users as individuals who make ≥4 ED visits/year and business hours as 8 am to 5 pm. We used descriptive statistics to describe the epidemiology of Medicaid-covered ED visits. RESULTS: NHAMCS included 21,800 ED visits by nonelderly adults in 2010, of which 5,659 (24.09%) were covered by Medicaid insurance. Most ED visits covered by Medicaid were made by patients who are young (25 and 44 years old) and female (67.95%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 66.00-69.89). A large proportion of the ED visits covered by Medicaid were revisits within 72 h (14.66%; 95% CI 9.13-20.19) and from frequent ED users (32.32%; 95% CI 24.29-40.35). Almost half of all ED visits covered by Medicaid occurred during business hours (45.44%; 95% CI 43.45-47.43). CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of Medicaid enrollees who used the ED were young females, with a large proportion of visits occurring during business hours. Almost one-third of all visits were from frequent ED users.

National study of health insurance type and reasons for emergency department use.

BACKGROUND: The rates of emergency department (ED) utilization vary substantially by type of health insurance, but the association between health insurance type and patient-reported reasons for seeking ED care is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the association between health insurance type and self-perceived acuity or access issues among individuals discharged from the ED. DESIGN, PATIENTS: This was a cross-sectional analysis of the 2011 National Health Interview Survey. Adults whose last ED visit did not result in hospitalization (n = 4,606) were asked structured questions about reasons for seeking ED care. We classified responses as 1) perceived need for immediate evaluation (acuity issues), or 2) barriers to accessing outpatient services (access issues). MAIN MEASURES: We analyzed survey-weighted data using multivariable logistic regression models to test the association between health insurance type and reasons for ED visits, while adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics. KEY RESULTS: Overall, 65.0% (95% CI 63.0-66.9) of adults reported ≥ 1 acuity issue and 78.9% (95% CI 77.3-80.5) reported ≥ 1 access issue. Among those who reported no acuity issue leading to the most recent ED visit, 84.2% reported ≥ 1 access issue. Relative to those with private insurance, adults with Medicaid (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.79-1.40) and those with Medicare (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.66-1.47) were similarly likely to seek ED care due to an acuity issue. Adults with Medicaid (OR 1.50; 95% CI 1.06-2.13) and Medicaid + Medicare (dual eligible) (OR 1.94; 95% CI 1.18-3.19) were more likely than those with private insurance to seek ED care for access issues. CONCLUSION: Variability in reasons for seeking ED care among discharged patients by health insurance type may be driven more by lack of access to alternate care, rather than by differences in patient-perceived acuity. Policymakers should focus on increasing access to alternate sites of care, particularly for Medicaid beneficiaries, as well as strategies to increase care coordination that involve ED patients and providers.

Hospital variation in risk-standardized hospital admission rates from US EDs among adults.

BACKGROUND: Variation in hospital admission rates of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) may represent an opportunity to improve practice. We seek to describe national variation in hospital admission rates from the ED and to determine the degree to which variation is not explained by patient characteristics or hospital factors. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of a nationally representative sample of ED visits among adults within the 2010 National Hospital Ambulatory Care Survey ED data of hospitals with admission rates from the ED between 5% and 50%. We calculated risk-standardized hospital admission rates (RSARs) from the ED using contemporary hospital profiling methodology, accounting for patients' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Among 19831 adult ED visits in 252 hospitals, there were 4148 hospital admissions from the ED. After accounting for patients' sociodemographic and clinical factors, the median RSAR from the ED was 16.9% (interquartile range, 15.0%-20.4%), and 8.1% of the variation in RSARs was attributable to an institution-specific effect. Even after accounting for hospital teaching status, ownership, urban/rural location, and geographical location, 7.0% of the variation in RSARs from the ED was still attributable to an institution-specific effect. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There was variation in hospital admission rates from the ED in the United States, even after adjusting for patients' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and accounting for hospital factors. Our findings suggest that suggesting that the likelihood of being admitted from the ED is not only dependent on clinical factors but also at which hospital the patient seeks care.

Frequent users of US emergency departments: characteristics and opportunities for intervention.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the characteristics of US adults by frequency of emergency department (ED) utilisation, specifically the prevalence of chronic diseases and outpatient primary care and mental health utilisation. METHODS: We analysed 157 818 adult participants of the 2004-2009 US National Health Interview Survey, an annual nationally representative sample. We defined ED utilisation during the past 12 months as non-users (0 ED visits), infrequent users (1-3 visits), frequent users (4-9 visits) and super-frequent users (≥10 visits). We compared demographic data, socioeconomic status, chronic diseases and access to care between these ED utilisation groups using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, super-frequent use was reported by 0.4% of US adults, frequent use by 2% and infrequent ED use by 19%. Patients reporting ≥4 ED visits were more likely to have Medicaid insurance (OR 1.57; 95% CI 1.34 to 1.85 vs private); fair or poor self-reported health (OR 2.98; 95% CI 2.57 to 3.46 vs excellent-very good); and chronic diseases such as coronary artery disease (OR 1.61; 95% CI 1.40 to 1.86), stroke (OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.36 to 1.83) or asthma (OR 1.64; 95% CI 1.46 to 1.85). While patients reporting the ED as their usual source of sick care were more likely to have ≥4 ED visits (OR 7.09; 95% CI 5.61 to 8.95 vs outpatient clinic as source), ≥10 outpatient visits in the past 12 months was also associated with frequent ED use (OR 11.4; 95% CI 9.09 to 14.2 vs no outpatient visits). CONCLUSIONS: Frequent ED users had a large burden of chronic diseases that also required high outpatient resources. Interventions designed to divert frequent ED users should focus on chronic disease management and access to outpatient services, particularly for Medicaid beneficiaries and other high risk subpopulations.

Characteristics of Medicaid enrollees with frequent ED use.

BACKGROUND: Medicaid enrollees are disproportionately represented among patients with frequent Emergency Department (ED) visits, yet prior studies investigating frequent ED users have focused on patients with all insurance types. METHODS: This was a single center, retrospective study of Medicaid-insured frequent ED users (defined as ≥4 ED visits/year not resulting in hospital admission) to assess patients' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and evaluate differences in these characteristics by frequency of use (4-6, 7-17, and ≥18 ED visits). RESULTS: Twelve percent (n = 1619) of Medicaid enrollees who visited the ED during the 1-year study period were frequent ED users, accounting for 38% of all ED visits (n = 10,337). Most frequent ED users (n = 1165, 72%) had 4-6 visits; 416 (26%) had 7-17 visits, and 38 (2%) had ≥18 visits. Overall, 67% had a primary care provider and 56% had at least one chronic medical condition. The most common ED diagnosis among patients with 4-6 visits was abdominal pain (7%); among patients with 7-17 and ≥18 ED visits, the most common diagnosis was alcohol-related disorders (11% and 36%, respectively). Compared with those who had 4-6 visits, patients with ≥18 visits were more likely to be homeless (7% vs 42%, P < .05) and suffer from alcohol abuse (15% vs 42%, P < .05). CONCLUSION: One out of 8 Medicaid enrollees who visited the ED had ≥4 visits in a year. Efforts to reduce frequent ED use should focus on reducing barriers to accessing primary care. More tailored interventions are needed to meet the complex needs of adults with ≥18 visits per year.

Accuracy of microscopic urine analysis and chest radiography in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of source of infection in patients with septic shock and severe sepsis needs to be done rapidly and accurately to guide appropriate antibiotic therapy. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of two diagnostic studies used in the emergency department (ED) to guide diagnosis of source of infection in this patient population. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of ED patients admitted to an intensive care unit with the diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock over a 12-month period. We evaluated accuracy of initial microscopic urine analysis testing and chest radiography in the diagnosis of urinary tract infections and pneumonia, respectively. RESULTS: Of the 1400 patients admitted to intensive care units, 170 patients met criteria for severe sepsis and septic shock. There were a total of 47 patients diagnosed with urinary tract infection, and their initial microscopic urine analysis with counts>10 white blood cells were 80% sensitive (95% confidence interval [CI] .66-.90) and 66% specific (95% CI .52-.77) for the positive final urine culture result. There were 85 patients with final diagnosis of pneumonia. The sensitivity and specificity of initial chest radiography were, respectively, 58% (95% CI .46-.68) and 91% (95% CI .81-.95) for the diagnosis of pneumonia. CONCLUSION: In patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, the chest radiograph has low sensitivity of 58%, whereas urine analysis has a low specificity of 66%. Given the importance of appropriate antibiotic selection and optimal but not perfect test characteristics, this population may benefit from broad-spectrum antibiotics, rather than antibiotics tailored toward a particular source of infection.

Impact of physician screening in the emergency department on patient flow.

BACKGROUND: Physician triage is one of many front-end interventions being implemented to improve emergency department (ED) efficiency. STUDY OBJECTIVE: We aim to determine the impact of this intervention on some key components of ED patient flow, including time to physician evaluation, treatment order entry, diagnostic order entry, and disposition time for admitted patients. METHODS: We conducted a 2-year before-after analysis of a physician triage system at an urban tertiary academic center with 90,000 annual visits. The goal of the physician in triage was to arrange safe disposition of straightforward patients as well as to initiate work-ups. All medium-acuity patients arriving during the hours of the intervention were impacted and thus included in the analysis. Our primary outcome was the time to disposition decision. In addition to before-after analysis, comparison was made with high-acuity patients, a group not impacted by this intervention. Patient flow data were extracted from the ED information system. Outcomes were summarized with medians and interquartiles. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to investigate the intervention effect controlling for potential confounding variables. RESULTS: The median time to disposition decision decreased by 6min, and the time to physician evaluation, analgesia, antiemetic, antibiotic, and radiology order decreased by 16, 70, 66, 36, and 16min, respectively. These findings were all statistically significant. Similar results were observed from the multivariable regression models after controlling for potential confounding factors. CONCLUSIONS: Physician triage led to earlier evaluation, physician orders, and a decrease in the time to disposition decision.

Impact of physician-assisted triage on timing of antibiotic delivery in patients admitted to the hospital with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).

BACKGROUND: Time to antibiotic delivery in patients with diagnosis of pneumonia is a publicly reported quality measure. OBJECTIVE: We aim to describe the impact of emergency department (ED) physician-assisted triage (PAT) on The Joint Commission (TJC) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) pneumonia core quality measures of timing to antibiotic delivery. METHODS: Retrospective case series studies of patients admitted to the hospital through the ED with diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia were identified over a period of 48 months. Patients were included in the study if they met TJC/CMS PN-5 (antibiotic timing) criteria. We compared antibiotic delivery timing before and after implementation of PAT in moderate-acuity patients using Wilcoxon rank sum tests. A linear regression analysis was done to account for age, sex, ED volume, and acuity level. RESULTS: A total of 659 patients were identified: 497 patients and 162 patients enrolled pre- and post-implementation of a PAT, respectively. The median antibiotic delivery times for moderate-acuity patients during open hours of operation of PAT were 180min (pre) and 195min (post), p=0.027; this was unchanged when ED volume, age, sex, and acuity level were accounted for. A total of 43 patients (9%) and 13 patients (8%) failed to receive antibiotics within 6h of ED presentation before and after implementation of PAT, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this study, implementation of PAT did not result in overall decrease in antibiotic delivery time in patients admitted to the hospital with CAP. We postulate several explanations for this delay in antibiotic delivery time.

Effective antibiotic treatment prescribed by emergency physicians in patients admitted to the intensive care unit with severe sepsis or septic shock: where is the gap?

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic selection made within the first hour of recognition of severe sepsis and septic shock has been shown to decrease mortality. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine what antibiotics are being prescribed and to identify factors influencing ineffective antibiotic coverage in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. In addition, we explore an alternative method for antibiotic selection that could improve organism coverage. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of emergency department (ED) patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) over a 12-month period with a culture-positive diagnosis of either severe sepsis or septic shock. Appropriate antibiotic therapy was defined as effective coverage of the offending organism based on final culture results. RESULTS: Of the 1400 patients admitted to the ICU, 137 patients were culture positive and met the criteria for severe sepsis or septic shock. Effective antibiotic coverage was prescribed by emergency physicians in 82% (95% confidence interval [CI] .74-.88) of cases. Of the 25 patients who received ineffective antibiotics, the majority had infections caused by resistant Gram-negative organisms. Health care-associated pneumonia guidelines were applied to all patients, regardless of the source of infection, and were 100% sensitive (95% CI .93-1) for selecting patients who had infections caused by highly resistant organisms. CONCLUSION: Emergency physicians achieved 82% effective antibiotic coverage in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. The gap seems to be in coverage of highly resistant Gram-negative organisms. An alternative approach to antibiotic prescription, utilizing a set of guidelines for community- and health care-associated infections, was found to be 100% sensitive in selecting patients who had infections caused by the more resistant organisms.

"I wanted to participate in my own care": Evaluation of a Patient Navigation Program.

INTRODUCTION: Patient navigation programs can help people overcome barriers to outpatient care. Patient experiences with these programs are not well understood. The goal of this study was to understand patient experiences and satisfaction with an emergency department (ED)-initiated patient navigation (ED-PN) intervention for US Medicaid-enrolled frequent ED users. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation of patient experiences and satisfaction with an ED-PN program for patients who visited the ED more than four times in the prior year. Participants were Medicaid-enrolled, English- or Spanish-speaking, New Haven-CT residents over the age of 18. Pre-post ED-PN intervention surveys and post-ED-PN individual interviews were conducted. We analyzed baseline and follow-up survey responses as proportions of total responses. Interviews were coded by multiple readers, and interview themes were identified by consensus. RESULTS: A total of 49 participants received ED-PN. Of those, 80% (39/49) completed the post-intervention survey. After receiving ED-PN, participants reported high satisfaction, fewer barriers to medical care, and increased confidence in their ability to coordinate and manage their medical care. Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was reached. Four main themes emerged from 11 interviews: 1) PNs were perceived as effective navigators and advocates; 2) health-related social needs were frequent drivers of and barriers to healthcare; 3) primary care utilization depended on clinic accessibility and quality of relationships with providers and staff; and 4) the ED was viewed as providing convenient, comprehensive care for urgent needs. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid-enrolled frequent ED users receiving ED-PN had high satisfaction and reported improved ability to manage their health conditions.

Description and Yield of Current Quality and Safety Review in Selected US Academic Emergency Departments.

OBJECTIVES: Quality and safety review for performance improvement is important for systems of care and is required for US academic emergency departments (EDs). Assessment of the impact of patient safety initiatives in the context of increasing burdens of quality measurement compels standardized, meaningful, high-yield approaches for performance review. Limited data describe how quality and safety reviews are currently conducted and how well they perform in detecting patient harm and areas for improvement. We hypothesized that decades-old approaches used in many academic EDs are inefficient and low yield for identifying patient harm. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study to evaluate the efficiency and yield of current quality review processes at five academic EDs for a 12-month period. Sites provided descriptions of their current practice and collected summary data on the number and severity of events identified in their reviews and the referral sources that led to their capture. Categories of common referral sources were established at the beginning of the study. Sites used the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's definition in defining an adverse event and a modified National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (MERP) Index for grading severity of events. RESULTS: Participating sites had similar processes for quality review, including a two-level review process, monthly reviews and conferences, similar screening criteria, and a grading system for evaluating cases. In 60 months of data collection, we reviewed a total of 4735 cases and identified 381 events. This included 287 near-misses, errors/events (MERP A-I) and 94 adverse events (AEs) (MERP E-I). The overall AE rate (event rate with harm) was 1.99 (95% confidence interval = 1.62%-2.43%), ranging from 1.24% to 3.47% across sites. The overall rate of quality concerns (events without harm) was 6.06% (5.42%-6.78%), ranging from 2.96% to 10.95% across sites. Seventy-two-hour returns were the most frequent referral source used, accounting for 47% of the cases reviewed but with a yield of only 0.81% in identifying harm. Other referral sources similarly had very low yields. External referrals were the highest yield referral source, with 14.34% (10.64%-19.03%) identifying AEs. As a percentage of the 94 AEs identified, external referrals also accounted for 41.49% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: With an overall adverse event rate of 1.99%, commonly used referral sources seem to be low yield and inefficient for detecting patient harm. Approximately 6% of the cases identified by these criteria yielded a near miss or quality concern. New approaches to quality and safety review in the ED are needed to optimize their yield and efficiency for identifying harm and areas for improvement.